As the owner of a nationwide provider of bail bonds through a family-owned and operated property and casualty insurance company, I would like to respond to the June 14 editorial about the possibility of a return to commercialized bail in Wisconsin. In particular, I would like to clear up some of the misstatements about what bail does or does not do, as these corrections speak to the heart of the issue under consideration.

For starters, the editorial said commercialized bail "does little to ensure public safety." The federal Bureau of Justice Statistics annual reports consistently show that defendants released on bail (financial release) return for their court appearances at a far higher rate than those released unsecured. What could be a better measure of public safety than that? And to be clear, the only purpose of either bail or the alternatives currently being used in Wisconsin is to ensure that defendants show up in court when they are supposed to.

Second, the editorial asked a good question related to the posting of a bail bond: "Where is the incentive to appear in court?"

When someone posts a bail bond, it is usually because he or she cannot afford the full amount required by the judge to secure release. A defendant buys a bail bond and has a huge incentive to appear for several reasons.

First, an agent often will secure collateral, which is held until the defendant appears. This collateral is returned only when the defendant fulfills the terms of the contract, i.e., returns to court.

Second, the agent often works with family and local community members to secure the bond, thereby engendering the defendant's own support system and providing another very powerful incentive: family and peer pressure.

Finally, and this is true of all methods of pretrial release, if the defendant does not return to court, a warrant is issued for his or her arrest. However, only with bail does the defendant face the additional threat of being found and returned to court by a licensed professional bail agent. In fact, when compared to non-secured release, the defendant who posts bail has more - much more - incentive to appear in court. This is why "failure to appear" rates are much lower for bail than other means of release.

Perhaps the most inaccurate statement in the editorial is the notion that someone who posts bail "doesn't have to follow any obligations set by the courts." This is not true. The posting of bail only deals with release, not the conditions of the release.

If a judge orders someone into drug testing, rehabilitation or requires GPS monitoring, no bail agent in America can overrule that judge's orders. In fact, as a surety, we work with our agents to help them assist the judiciary in this capacity, often offering these services through the private sector. This is especially helpful in smaller or in rural jurisdictions, where the courts themselves are unable to provide these services.

In closing, it is important to recognize that the editorial inferred that posting a bail bond would be exclusive to all other means of pretrial release. This, too, is not the case. The measure in question would simply offer defendants an option.

If a defendant wishes to use the current system of posting the entire amount, then he or she will still be able to do so. Unfortunately, most people can't afford to shell out $10,000 or $20,000 and in many cases will be stuck behind bars for an extended period prior to being found guilty of any crime. This is not just a burden on a potentially innocent defendant but costs taxpayers millions of dollars in unnecessary jail costs as well.

The editorial was correct in noting that Wisconsin is one of only a handful of states that do not allow bail bondsmen. While Wisconsin has a long history of being at the forefront of social change, this is one area where it would be best to do what 46 other states currently do - give defendants an option they can afford.

http://www.JacksBailBonds.com